Proposal for CHS - Remove the Zero bonus. Any opinions?

[Sardaukar]

I say to leave it as it is. Exp levels could be adjusted on both sides, though.

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

I say to leave it as it is. Exp levels could be adjusted on both sides, though.

Is it even POSSIBLE to remove the Zero bonus in CHS? Wouldn't this take a code change?

[Yamato hugger]

You can move the Zero to a different slot, like swap A6M8 and A6M2 for example. That would give the Zero bonus to the M8 ([:D])

Actually I like the idea of swapping the Oscar I with the A6M3. Sounds like a very good idea to me. Not many M3s are going to be in the game for that added +1 they would get, so no biggie.

[Sardaukar]

Hmmm..if the Oscar can get the bonus too by swapping the slots with later model Zero I'll support that.

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

You can move the Zero to a different slot, like swap A6M8 and A6M2 for example. That would give the Zero bonus to the M8 ([:D])

Actually I like the idea of swapping the Oscar I with the A6M3. Sounds like a very good idea to me. Not many M3s are going to be in the game for that added +1 they would get, so no biggie.

Guess i shoulda re-read the first post.[8|][:o]

Hopefully, all of this IS slot dependent, otherwise all this is moot (it does seem likely that it is, though).

[Oleg Mastruko]

I am all against the Zero bonus, in principle, and I'd support the idea coming from any other "club" other than CHS.

But considering CHS is, was, and obviously will always be Drunken Allied Fanboy party club, introducing YET ANOTHER pro Allied change will just make it even more unbalanced and ridicolous. Knowing CHS guys, the only thing I find strange is you didn't think of this one earlier. [;)] The idea that this, or most other changes, do not favor the Allies, because mod team will take care to compensate by changing something else, coming from CHS guys is almost laughable.

Then again, why would I care [:D] Please do not pay attention to my posts, I'm just the local lunatic....

O.

[anarchyintheuk]

Why bother with any of this until we know how much xp affects a2a?

[kaleun]

As far as the British experience, here is my 2 cents worth:
Yes the RAF was fighting a war in Europe against a real airforce with real airplanes, so their pilots were very experienced.
BUT THOSE PILOTS WERE NOT IN MALAYA/BURMA
If you look in volume one of "Bloody Shambles" it appears that a very large proportion of the British pilots were poorly trained civilian air club pilots that were rapidly trained, in an "ad hoc" fashion, flying whatever was available. The actual number of experienced RAF pilots was actually quite low. (Don't have the figures with me; I'm at work)

I do think we should improve the Oscar though.

[TulliusDetritus]

Andrew, as a user of your mod/map, in my opinion "something" has to simulate the historic initial superiority of the Zero. Call it bonus, experience or whatever.

[Nikademus]

Actually there were some BoB vets with operational combat experience in Malaya but they were few in number in comparison to the inexperienced pilots. Many of them had abreviated training as well. the UK/Commonwealth airforce was the only one that had such veterans at war's start. It should be noted however that even the vets would be taken by suprise at the qualities of their opponent.

[TulliusDetritus]

Both americans and british were very surprised. They thought japanese pilots were much more inferior than german, italian pilots... and the fact: japanese navy pilots were the best naval pilots of the world... but no reserves behind... [:D]

[Ron Saueracker]

It should be noted however that even the vets would be taken by suprise at the qualities of their opponent

.

We hear this all the time but what does it really equate to? Were the Japs so far superior over their counterparts or were the Japs so far superior over their counterparts prewar expectations of their skill? I'd be surprised two if bespectacled monkeys were actually flying planes competently.[8D]

[Bradley7735]

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

Both americans and british were very surprised. They thought japanese pilots were much more inferior than german, italian pilots... and the fact: japanese navy pilots were the best naval pilots of the world... but no reserves behind... [:D]

The USN gave as good (or better) as they got in all carrier battles in 42. At least the F4F pilots did. I would agree that Japanese bombers were probably better than USN in 42, but the fighter pilots were equal at best.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

It should be noted however that even the vets would be taken by suprise at the qualities of their opponent

.

We hear this all the time but what does it really equate to? Were the Japs so far superior over their counterparts or were the Japs so far superior over their counterparts prewar expectations of their skill? I'd be surprised two if bespectacled monkeys were actually flying planes competently.[8D]

It equates to a fatal underestimation of one's opponent....not to mention several other key factors.


[/quote]

[TulliusDetritus]

Bradley, I agree with you, but do not forget that the japanese naval pilots had a great fighting experience (their american counterparts didn't): China. Yes, they were used in that theater.

[EDIT: "fighting experience" is very important. Just remember the american troops in North Africa after Torch. Very well armed but they were green [;)] ]

[Honda]

Sorry, but reducing experiance will do nothing because on map training is too easy and to rewarding for anyone to remove his squadrons from training before they're in their 80s. So if 40-50 would be trained pilots and 60-70 experts how could you explain the mass production of aces with 90+?
It would be a good idea if it didn't get unbalanced by the game. If on map training wouldn't yield such results then exp reduction would make sence.
And give my my Oscar bonus!!![;)]

[mdiehl]

Both americans and british were very surprised. They thought japanese pilots were much more inferior than german, italian pilots... and the fact: japanese navy pilots were the best naval pilots of the world... but no reserves behind...

That is not entirely correct. USAAF pilots had heard through the grapevine that the A6M type were highly maneuverable but outside of Chennault's command the lesson seemed not to have been taken seriously. The actual effects on combat of underestimating the intel have not been quantitatively studied. During the first six months of the war the Zero enjoyed impressive success especially against land based air in Burma/Malaya. Part of the problem there was initial UK resistence to the P-40 -- initially they thought the F2A2 a better aircraft.

In Indonesia the record is mixed. The one unit that I could find detailed records on had a favorable casualty ratio based on pilot claims... which is worth diddly in my opinion as far as data quality. We can say that the Japanese initially trounced opposition in the PI/Indonesia/Borneo theater in part because they had positional advantage (better and more airbases with better logistics in range of the objectives... they'd been preparing for a long time) and that the Allies had weak logistics and few replacements (vis parts) in the same area... so units stationed there were rapidly attrited merely by operations.

Somewhere in there lies the real "truth" about the balance of quality in aircraft and pilots. Myself, I suspect that the Zero bonus incorrectly attributes to Japanese pilots and aircraft an advnatgage that was largely fained by good preparation of forward bases and good logistical planning. In support of that we may note that when Allied aircraft (apart from the F2A) weren't caught on the ground or at extreme positional disadvantage (such as taking off or landing as in the Darwin raid) they acquitted themselves quite well.

The story is completely different when you compare USN with IJN pilots. USN pilots were as well trained, perhaps even better trained than IJN pilots. USN doctrine was better, the equipment more reliable, and in the long run the "fighting qualities" of the F4F were on par with that of the A6M. Again IMO the extensive Japanese airtime, experience vs. underequipped and ill-trained Chinese pilots in 1938, and the emphasis on chickenpoop (excessive emphasis on rigid obedience to superiors, unnecessarily restrictive criteria on physical conditioning etc) did not really amount to anything useful in combat. That is why in all face to face USN F4F vs A6M engagements through 1942 the USN Wildcat pilots shot down more Japanese Zero pilots than the USN lost.

The best thing to do with the "Zero bonus" would be to eliminate it entirely. Make the Japanese player through proper logistical planning the initial advantage that the real Japanese gained. Make the Allied player have to face the exceedingly crappy logistical challenge posed by operating from lousy airbases on a logistical shoestring in the Indonesia/Borneo/PI/New Guinea area.

If the Japanese make a return visit against a well prepared and manned airfield like PH, it should regularly happen that they get their asses kicked badly.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

Some people have suggested that it would be a good idea to get rid of the "Zero bonus", possibly replacing it with some other early war advantage to the Japanese aircraft. This could be done by switching the slot numbers of the A6M2 and A6M3 (slots 3 and 4) with, say the Zekes (slots 5 and 6), as the bonus is presumably hard coded to the aircraft slot numbers.

Now for some questions:

• What is an appropriate substitute for the bonus? The idea I have seen, which sounds reasonable, is to reduce the experience level of Allied pilots. Or maybe just do nothing?
• If the experience level of Allied pilots is reduced, how much should it be reduced by?
• Is this a good idea, a bad idea, or you don't care?

I expect that the net result of these changes would be that the Japanese air advantage enjoyed by the zero would not be as large, and not last as long, but on the other hand it would apply to ALL Japanese aircraft, not the just the A6M2 and the A6M3.

Thoughts?

I'd say leave it, maybe even extend it to Oscars,, but kill it after 3 months. What it really represents is Allied Pilots (who were fairly skilled themselves) learning the hard way that you CAN'T "dogfight" with a Zero or an Oscar. No matter how good you are or you thought your aircraft was, getting in a turning contest with the Japs costs you airspeed and plays right into the strength of Japanese Fighter designs.
But the second you learn NOT to play to their strengths, the field is "evened" You can out-roll and out- dive them, and in many cases out-run them. They can generally out-turn and out-climb you. It's not really a matter of skill, it's a matter of getting rid of pre-War prejudices and realizing that the other guy is just as good as you, so you had better out think and out tactic him. Which is what the Allies did until newer aircraft and the decline of Japan's pilot pool turned the Pacific into a "turkey shoot"

[TulliusDetritus]

Mdiehl, yes, some (or many) americans, british knew that the Zero was a great plane... but I am basically talking about those who take the decisions. The british intelligence stated that the "japanese pilots were much more inferior than italian, german pilots"... and then Prince of Wales... Repulse... They were forced to open their eyes [:)]

[Ron Saueracker]

As I said before, I don't really disagree with the bonus and would agree to expanding it to Oscars but I'd like to see the experience levels of pilots drop universally by 20-25 points to both lessen the bloodiness of A2A and give pilot experience some meaning. What's the point of having pilot exp ratings if everyone is in the top 10 percentile?

As for the ability to learn not to dogfight and using diving and slashing attacks, is this best represented by removing the zero bonus or simply adjusting aircraft ratings? Dogfighting is represented by mnvr ratings. What would effectively mimic boom and zoom? Speed/durability/armour?

Man this is like rock/paper/scissors trying to sort this model out.